This book explores a new area, the philosophy of autobiography. There are many long-standing philosophical discussions surrounding concepts relating to autobiography: the self, personal identity, ...
More

This book explores a new area, the philosophy of autobiography. There are many long-standing philosophical discussions surrounding concepts relating to autobiography: the self, personal identity, narrative, understanding others, self-understanding, the reliability of memory, self-deception, the meaning of life. There has also been sustained interest among literary critics in the genre of autobiography. However, there is relatively little that brings these philosophical debates together to ask: what is it we are doing, exactly, when we write an autobiography? And the related question of: what do we understand when we read someone else's autobiography? Finally, the volume also asks: what is special about a published autobiography, as opposed to a single individual thinking about her life, or a self-description spoken to a friend, or the writing of a personal diary? This volume brings together ten diverse contributions from different perspectives and disciplines, exploring some answers to these questions: Marya Schechtman, Garry L. Hagberg, Christopher Hamilton, Marina Oshana, John Christman, Somogy Varga, D.K. Levy, Merete Mazzarella, J. Lenore Wright, and Áine Mahon.Less

The Philosophy of Autobiography

Published in print: 2015-10-26

This book explores a new area, the philosophy of autobiography. There are many long-standing philosophical discussions surrounding concepts relating to autobiography: the self, personal identity, narrative, understanding others, self-understanding, the reliability of memory, self-deception, the meaning of life. There has also been sustained interest among literary critics in the genre of autobiography. However, there is relatively little that brings these philosophical debates together to ask: what is it we are doing, exactly, when we write an autobiography? And the related question of: what do we understand when we read someone else's autobiography? Finally, the volume also asks: what is special about a published autobiography, as opposed to a single individual thinking about her life, or a self-description spoken to a friend, or the writing of a personal diary? This volume brings together ten diverse contributions from different perspectives and disciplines, exploring some answers to these questions: Marya Schechtman, Garry L. Hagberg, Christopher Hamilton, Marina Oshana, John Christman, Somogy Varga, D.K. Levy, Merete Mazzarella, J. Lenore Wright, and Áine Mahon.

Improvisation is usually either lionized as an ecstatic experience of being in the moment or disparaged as the thoughtless recycling of clichés. Eschewing both of these orthodoxies, this book ranges ...
More

Improvisation is usually either lionized as an ecstatic experience of being in the moment or disparaged as the thoughtless recycling of clichés. Eschewing both of these orthodoxies, this book ranges across the arts—from music to theater, dance to comedy—and considers the improvised dimension of philosophy itself in order to elaborate an innovative concept of improvisation. The author turns to many of the major thinkers within continental philosophy—including Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche, Theodor Adorno, Immanuel Kant, Walter Benjamin, and Gilles Deleuze—offering readings of their reflections on improvisation and exploring improvisational elements within their thinking. The author's wry, humorous style offers an antidote to the frequently overheated celebration of freedom and community that characterizes most writing on the subject. Expanding the field of what counts as improvisation, this book will be welcomed by anyone striving to comprehend the creative process.Less

The Philosophy of Improvisation

Gary Peters

Published in print: 2009-05-01

Improvisation is usually either lionized as an ecstatic experience of being in the moment or disparaged as the thoughtless recycling of clichés. Eschewing both of these orthodoxies, this book ranges across the arts—from music to theater, dance to comedy—and considers the improvised dimension of philosophy itself in order to elaborate an innovative concept of improvisation. The author turns to many of the major thinkers within continental philosophy—including Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche, Theodor Adorno, Immanuel Kant, Walter Benjamin, and Gilles Deleuze—offering readings of their reflections on improvisation and exploring improvisational elements within their thinking. The author's wry, humorous style offers an antidote to the frequently overheated celebration of freedom and community that characterizes most writing on the subject. Expanding the field of what counts as improvisation, this book will be welcomed by anyone striving to comprehend the creative process.

What sets the practice of rigorously tested, sound science apart from pseudoscience? This book seeks to answer this question, known to philosophers of science as “the demarcation problem.” This issue ...
More

What sets the practice of rigorously tested, sound science apart from pseudoscience? This book seeks to answer this question, known to philosophers of science as “the demarcation problem.” This issue has a long history in philosophy, stretching as far back as the early twentieth century and the work of Karl Popper. But by the late 1980s, scholars in the field began to treat the demarcation problem as impossible to solve and futile to ponder. However, the chapters here make a case for the unequivocal importance of reflecting on the separation between pseudoscience and sound science. Moreover, the demarcation problem is not a purely theoretical dilemma of mere academic interest: it affects parents' decisions to vaccinate children and governments' willingness to adopt policies that prevent climate change. Pseudoscience often mimics science, using the superficial language and trappings of actual scientific research to seem more respectable. Even a well-informed public can be taken in by such questionable theories dressed up as science. Pseudoscientific beliefs compete with sound science on the health pages of newspapers for media coverage and in laboratories for research funding. Now more than ever the ability to separate genuine scientific findings from spurious ones is vital, and this book provides ground for philosophers, sociologists, historians, and laypeople to make decisions about what science is or isn't.Less

Philosophy of Pseudoscience : Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem

Massimo PigliucciMaarten Boudry

Published in print: 2013-08-16

What sets the practice of rigorously tested, sound science apart from pseudoscience? This book seeks to answer this question, known to philosophers of science as “the demarcation problem.” This issue has a long history in philosophy, stretching as far back as the early twentieth century and the work of Karl Popper. But by the late 1980s, scholars in the field began to treat the demarcation problem as impossible to solve and futile to ponder. However, the chapters here make a case for the unequivocal importance of reflecting on the separation between pseudoscience and sound science. Moreover, the demarcation problem is not a purely theoretical dilemma of mere academic interest: it affects parents' decisions to vaccinate children and governments' willingness to adopt policies that prevent climate change. Pseudoscience often mimics science, using the superficial language and trappings of actual scientific research to seem more respectable. Even a well-informed public can be taken in by such questionable theories dressed up as science. Pseudoscientific beliefs compete with sound science on the health pages of newspapers for media coverage and in laboratories for research funding. Now more than ever the ability to separate genuine scientific findings from spurious ones is vital, and this book provides ground for philosophers, sociologists, historians, and laypeople to make decisions about what science is or isn't.

This book argues that the domestic tumult of the early Cold War favored a “new and improved” philosophical paradigm for America, better adapted to the times than other approaches. Comprised of ...
More

This book argues that the domestic tumult of the early Cold War favored a “new and improved” philosophical paradigm for America, better adapted to the times than other approaches. Comprised of heterogeneous elements that mainly shared a mathematical veneer and their adaptability to Cold War political pressures, this “Cold War philosophy” valorized concepts of scientific objectivity and practices of market freedom, while prudently downplaying the anti-theistic implications of modern thought. Enforced by “sticks” from outside the university, encouraged by “carrots” proffered from within, and imposed in California by a draconian vetting system for job candidates, Cold War philosophy rapidly became central to academia. The clearest statement we have of its main themes is Hans Reichenbach’s The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, which this book places into the context of Cold War pressures on American philosophy. The main alternatives to Cold War philosophy, pragmatism and existentialism, were disfavored because their open commitments to atheism were unacceptable to powerful American religious forces; Reichenbach’s naturalism, like that of other logical positivists, was hidden behind long and technical discussions of “reduction.” The positive doctrines of Cold war philosophy were largely shared with rational choice theory; but where such theory was presented as an empirical theory of market and voting behavior, Cold War philosophy presented a theory of the properly functioning human mind everywhere and always, making it what the times required: an effective counter-ideology to global Marxism.Less

The Philosophy Scare : The Politics of Reason in the Early Cold War

John McCumber

Published in print: 2016-09-15

This book argues that the domestic tumult of the early Cold War favored a “new and improved” philosophical paradigm for America, better adapted to the times than other approaches. Comprised of heterogeneous elements that mainly shared a mathematical veneer and their adaptability to Cold War political pressures, this “Cold War philosophy” valorized concepts of scientific objectivity and practices of market freedom, while prudently downplaying the anti-theistic implications of modern thought. Enforced by “sticks” from outside the university, encouraged by “carrots” proffered from within, and imposed in California by a draconian vetting system for job candidates, Cold War philosophy rapidly became central to academia. The clearest statement we have of its main themes is Hans Reichenbach’s The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, which this book places into the context of Cold War pressures on American philosophy. The main alternatives to Cold War philosophy, pragmatism and existentialism, were disfavored because their open commitments to atheism were unacceptable to powerful American religious forces; Reichenbach’s naturalism, like that of other logical positivists, was hidden behind long and technical discussions of “reduction.” The positive doctrines of Cold war philosophy were largely shared with rational choice theory; but where such theory was presented as an empirical theory of market and voting behavior, Cold War philosophy presented a theory of the properly functioning human mind everywhere and always, making it what the times required: an effective counter-ideology to global Marxism.

The book is a full-fledged examination of Kant on reason. Reason is about a comprehensive vision that understands itself (from sciences and cognitions to action to all objects of its legislation) in ...
More

The book is a full-fledged examination of Kant on reason. Reason is about a comprehensive vision that understands itself (from sciences and cognitions to action to all objects of its legislation) in relation to its ends. A rigorous analysis of the different meanings of key concepts throughout Kant’s works, such as ideas, concepts, intuition, the a priori, mathematics, metaphysics and critical philosophy, and categories and judgment, forms the heart of this book.Less

The Powers of Pure Reason : Kant and the Idea of Cosmic Philosophy

Alfredo Ferrarin

Published in print: 2015-04-10

The book is a full-fledged examination of Kant on reason. Reason is about a comprehensive vision that understands itself (from sciences and cognitions to action to all objects of its legislation) in relation to its ends. A rigorous analysis of the different meanings of key concepts throughout Kant’s works, such as ideas, concepts, intuition, the a priori, mathematics, metaphysics and critical philosophy, and categories and judgment, forms the heart of this book.

What is the nature of the fundamental relation we have to ourselves that makes each of us a self? To answer this question, this book develops a systematic theory of the self, challenging the ...
More

What is the nature of the fundamental relation we have to ourselves that makes each of us a self? To answer this question, this book develops a systematic theory of the self, challenging the widespread view that the self's defining relation to itself is to have an immediate knowledge of its own thoughts. On the contrary, the book maintains, our essential relation to ourselves is practical, as is clear when we consider the nature of belief and desire. For to believe or desire something consists in committing ourselves to thinking and acting in accord with the presumed truth of our belief or the presumed value of what we desire. The book develops this conception with frequent reference to such classic authors as Montaigne, Stendhal, and Proust and by comparing it to other views of the self in contemporary philosophy. It also discusses the important ethical consequences of a theory of the self, arguing that it allows us to better grasp what it means to be ourselves and why self-understanding often involves self-creation.Less

The Practices of the Self

Charles Larmore

Published in print: 2010-12-15

What is the nature of the fundamental relation we have to ourselves that makes each of us a self? To answer this question, this book develops a systematic theory of the self, challenging the widespread view that the self's defining relation to itself is to have an immediate knowledge of its own thoughts. On the contrary, the book maintains, our essential relation to ourselves is practical, as is clear when we consider the nature of belief and desire. For to believe or desire something consists in committing ourselves to thinking and acting in accord with the presumed truth of our belief or the presumed value of what we desire. The book develops this conception with frequent reference to such classic authors as Montaigne, Stendhal, and Proust and by comparing it to other views of the self in contemporary philosophy. It also discusses the important ethical consequences of a theory of the self, arguing that it allows us to better grasp what it means to be ourselves and why self-understanding often involves self-creation.

In this book, originally written as a dissertation for his diplôme d'études supérieures in 1953 and 1954, Derrida reveals what he sees as an internal tension in Husserl's central notion of genesis, ...
More

In this book, originally written as a dissertation for his diplôme d'études supérieures in 1953 and 1954, Derrida reveals what he sees as an internal tension in Husserl's central notion of genesis, and gives us our first glimpse into the concerns and frustrations that would later lead Derrida to abandon phenomenology and develop his now famous method of deconstruction. For Derrida, the problem of genesis in Husserl's philosophy is that both temporality and meaning must be generated by prior acts of the transcendental subject, but transcendental subjectivity must itself be constituted by an act of genesis. Hence, the notion of genesis in the phenomenological sense underlies both temporality and atemporality, history and philosophy, resulting in a tension that is ultimately unresolvable yet central to the practice of phenomenology. Ten years later, Derrida moved away from phenomenology entirely, arguing in his introduction to Husserl's posthumously published Origin of Geometry and his own Speech and Phenomena that the phenomenological project has neither resolved this tension nor expressly worked with it. This book complements these other works, showing the development of Derrida's approach to phenomenology as well as documenting the state of phenomenological thought in France during a particularly fertile period, when Levinas, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur, and Tran-Duc-Thao, as well as Derrida, were all working through it. But the book is most important in allowing us to follow Derrida's own development as a philosopher by tracing the roots of his later work in deconstruction to these early critical reflections on Husserl's phenomenology.Less

The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Philosophy

Jacques Derrida

Published in print: 2003-06-15

In this book, originally written as a dissertation for his diplôme d'études supérieures in 1953 and 1954, Derrida reveals what he sees as an internal tension in Husserl's central notion of genesis, and gives us our first glimpse into the concerns and frustrations that would later lead Derrida to abandon phenomenology and develop his now famous method of deconstruction. For Derrida, the problem of genesis in Husserl's philosophy is that both temporality and meaning must be generated by prior acts of the transcendental subject, but transcendental subjectivity must itself be constituted by an act of genesis. Hence, the notion of genesis in the phenomenological sense underlies both temporality and atemporality, history and philosophy, resulting in a tension that is ultimately unresolvable yet central to the practice of phenomenology. Ten years later, Derrida moved away from phenomenology entirely, arguing in his introduction to Husserl's posthumously published Origin of Geometry and his own Speech and Phenomena that the phenomenological project has neither resolved this tension nor expressly worked with it. This book complements these other works, showing the development of Derrida's approach to phenomenology as well as documenting the state of phenomenological thought in France during a particularly fertile period, when Levinas, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur, and Tran-Duc-Thao, as well as Derrida, were all working through it. But the book is most important in allowing us to follow Derrida's own development as a philosopher by tracing the roots of his later work in deconstruction to these early critical reflections on Husserl's phenomenology.

Interest in Leo Strauss is greater now than at any time since his death, because of the link between his thought and the political movement called “neoconservatism.” This book depicts Strauss not as ...
More

Interest in Leo Strauss is greater now than at any time since his death, because of the link between his thought and the political movement called “neoconservatism.” This book depicts Strauss not as a high priest of neoconservatism but as a friend of liberal democracy, showing that his defense of liberal democracy was closely connected with his skepticism of both the extreme Left and the extreme Right. The author asserts that philosophical skepticism defined Strauss's thought. It was as a skeptic that Strauss considered the seemingly irreconcilable conflict between reason and revelation—a conflict he dubbed the “theologico-political problem.” Throughout his life, Strauss pondered over the relation of the political order to revelation in general and Judaism in particular. The author addresses Strauss's views on religion and examines his thought on philosophical and political issues. The author assesses Strauss's attempt to direct the teaching of political science away from the examination of mass behavior and interest-group politics toward the study of the philosophical principles on which politics is based.Less

Reading Leo Strauss : Politics, Philosophy, Judaism

Steven B. Smith

Published in print: 2006-05-15

Interest in Leo Strauss is greater now than at any time since his death, because of the link between his thought and the political movement called “neoconservatism.” This book depicts Strauss not as a high priest of neoconservatism but as a friend of liberal democracy, showing that his defense of liberal democracy was closely connected with his skepticism of both the extreme Left and the extreme Right. The author asserts that philosophical skepticism defined Strauss's thought. It was as a skeptic that Strauss considered the seemingly irreconcilable conflict between reason and revelation—a conflict he dubbed the “theologico-political problem.” Throughout his life, Strauss pondered over the relation of the political order to revelation in general and Judaism in particular. The author addresses Strauss's views on religion and examines his thought on philosophical and political issues. The author assesses Strauss's attempt to direct the teaching of political science away from the examination of mass behavior and interest-group politics toward the study of the philosophical principles on which politics is based.

America is a country that affords its citizens the broadest freedoms and the greatest prosperity in the world. But it is also embroiled in a war that many of its citizens consider unjust and even ...
More

America is a country that affords its citizens the broadest freedoms and the greatest prosperity in the world. But it is also embroiled in a war that many of its citizens consider unjust and even illegal. It continues to ravage the natural environment and ignore poverty both at home and abroad, and its culture is increasingly driven by materialism and consumerism. But America, for better or for worse, is still a nation that we have built. So why then, asks this work, are we failing to take responsibility for it? The author asks us to reevaluate our role in the making of American values. Taking his cue from Winston Churchill—who once observed that we shape our buildings, and then our buildings shape us—the author considers the power of our most enduring institutions and the condition of our present moral makeup to propose new ways in which we, as ordinary citizens, can act to improve our country. This, he shows, includes everything from where we choose to live and what we spend our money on to daunting tasks like the reshaping of our cities—habits and actions that can guide us to more accomplished and virtuous lives. Using prose that is direct throughout, the author's position is grounded neither by conservative nor liberal ideology, but in his understanding that he is a devoted citizen among many.Less

Real American Ethics : Taking Responsibility for Our Country

Albert Borgmann

Published in print: 2007-01-08

America is a country that affords its citizens the broadest freedoms and the greatest prosperity in the world. But it is also embroiled in a war that many of its citizens consider unjust and even illegal. It continues to ravage the natural environment and ignore poverty both at home and abroad, and its culture is increasingly driven by materialism and consumerism. But America, for better or for worse, is still a nation that we have built. So why then, asks this work, are we failing to take responsibility for it? The author asks us to reevaluate our role in the making of American values. Taking his cue from Winston Churchill—who once observed that we shape our buildings, and then our buildings shape us—the author considers the power of our most enduring institutions and the condition of our present moral makeup to propose new ways in which we, as ordinary citizens, can act to improve our country. This, he shows, includes everything from where we choose to live and what we spend our money on to daunting tasks like the reshaping of our cities—habits and actions that can guide us to more accomplished and virtuous lives. Using prose that is direct throughout, the author's position is grounded neither by conservative nor liberal ideology, but in his understanding that he is a devoted citizen among many.

The Victorian period in Britain was an “age of reform.” It is therefore not surprising that two of the era's most eminent intellects described themselves as reformers. Both William Whewell and John ...
More

The Victorian period in Britain was an “age of reform.” It is therefore not surprising that two of the era's most eminent intellects described themselves as reformers. Both William Whewell and John Stuart Mill believed that by reforming philosophy—including the philosophy of science—they could affect social and political change. But their divergent visions of this societal transformation led to a sustained and spirited controversy that covered morality, politics, science, and economics. Situating their debate within the larger context of Victorian society and its concerns, this book shows how two very different men captured the intellectual spirit of the day and engaged the attention of other scientists and philosophers, including the young Charles Darwin. Mill—philosopher, political economist, and Parliamentarian—remains a canonical author of Anglo-American philosophy, while Whewell—Anglican cleric, scientist, and educator—is now often overlooked, though in his day he was renowned as an authority on science. Placing their teachings in their proper intellectual, cultural, and argumentative spheres, the book revises the standard views of these two important Victorian figures, showing that both men's concerns remain relevant today. A philosophically and historically sensitive account of the engagement of the major protagonists of Victorian British philosophy, this is the first book-length examination of the dispute between Mill and Whewell in its entirety.Less

Reforming Philosophy : A Victorian Debate on Science and Society

Laura J. Snyder

Published in print: 2006-08-15

The Victorian period in Britain was an “age of reform.” It is therefore not surprising that two of the era's most eminent intellects described themselves as reformers. Both William Whewell and John Stuart Mill believed that by reforming philosophy—including the philosophy of science—they could affect social and political change. But their divergent visions of this societal transformation led to a sustained and spirited controversy that covered morality, politics, science, and economics. Situating their debate within the larger context of Victorian society and its concerns, this book shows how two very different men captured the intellectual spirit of the day and engaged the attention of other scientists and philosophers, including the young Charles Darwin. Mill—philosopher, political economist, and Parliamentarian—remains a canonical author of Anglo-American philosophy, while Whewell—Anglican cleric, scientist, and educator—is now often overlooked, though in his day he was renowned as an authority on science. Placing their teachings in their proper intellectual, cultural, and argumentative spheres, the book revises the standard views of these two important Victorian figures, showing that both men's concerns remain relevant today. A philosophically and historically sensitive account of the engagement of the major protagonists of Victorian British philosophy, this is the first book-length examination of the dispute between Mill and Whewell in its entirety.

PRINTED FROM CHICAGO SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.chicago.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright University of Chicago Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CHSO for personal use (for details see http://www.chicago.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 18 August 2017